Stalking is legal? If you're in a union, sure!

[Spiderman]

Ah, yes, but he did facilitate your introduction to the fatty foods that got you that permanent disability.

At least I never got shit canned from multiple jobs like you have.

Well, yeah, you have to actually TRY something in order to fail, Spider-Troll.

Says the whiner who never had the balls to work for himself.

 

[WinterBorn]

That's fine. I have no problem with a union picket line. I have no problem with a union, per se.

But to try and justify the stalking and harassment of a someone's family simply because they are not totally supportive of unions is just wrong.

That's your opinion.

I don't think the 1% is going to start acting right until they start feeling a little "threatened", actually.

They certainly aren't going to do it because it's the right thing to do or it's good for the country. They way they've fucked up everything is proof enough of that.

So threatening people isn't crossing the line?

 

[WinterBorn]

Hey, you know what, no sympathy for anything bad happening to the 1%ers.


The judge threw this witch's case out. If she can't take the heat, she should get out of the kitchen.

The judge threw the case out because of the exemption unions have from stalking laws.

That is insane. Can you offer one valid reason why exemptions from stalking laws should exist for unions?

Yeah.

The fuckers probably deserve it.

Next.

So much for you holding them accountable when they cross the line. You WANT the unions to be exempt from the laws. And why? Because you think their victims probably deserve it.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

You really have a knack for trying to tell someone else what they think. You have done it several times with me, and you have yet to be even close to correct.

No, freedom does NOT mean they could put the VP of the company in the hospital with no consequences. If you think that is how freedom works you are either 12 years old or completely ignorant.

Freedom means I am free to decide for myself. That freedom ends when my actions harm others.

"What you want are laws that protect you, but not the other guy". WTF?? Are you kidding me?? You have the gall to actually type that drivel?
I am the guy who wants the stalking laws and harassment laws to apply to everyone. You are the one who wants your thugs to be immune from prosecution as they threaten citizens. Your hypocrisy really is astounding.

So you want Miss KNeepads to have the freedom to deprive these men of a livlihood, but gosh darn, you'd better not call me any bad names or take a picture of me when my kids are around.

Yeah. "Freedom". Also known as "You can't do this to me, I'm Rich!"

You are really a sad case. Oh, and if someone starts taking pics of your kids or grandkids when they are at their bus stop, is that ok with you?

I want someone to be able to run a business, within the bounds of the law, without having to worry about some vigilante thugs destroying their work or threatening their families. I want the laws to apply to BOTH sides. If there is a huge difference in pay, that will end up working itself out as the quality workers won't be there or won't stay there. But since you have no information on what was being paid to either the union workers or the non-union workers, you are speculating (at best).

Perhaps you lack the basic intellect to grasp the meaning of the word "Freedom". So far you have tried to tell me what I think it means. You have been grossly inaccurate. May I suggest you try reading a bit about it?

 

[WinterBorn]

[

Joe here has only 3 categories of people: First there are the hated 1%ers. Then there are the people who support or defend the 1%ers. And lastly there are the noble union men who fight for the souls and well-being of the workers, with no thought for themselves. These union men should be able to stalk, harass, attack, and destroy at will for their noble endeavors.

Actually, my three categories are this.

The 1%ers, who are probably taking us the way of Cuba with their shortsighted greed.

The noble union folks, who are fighting for the rights of workers, union and non-union alike.

And the dumb-ass bubba rednecks clinging to their guns and bibles, spewing forth whatever shit they heard on Hate Radio.

Awww, more cliches. Isn't that cute?

The problem here, nimrod, is that too many people don't fit into your categories. I am a college educated man who enjoys hunting & target shooting. I am agnostic (at best), and haven't listened to talk radio (of either stripe) since it was a novelty. I have worked a good portion of my career as a blue-collar, hard-headed lineman. I have hooked more poles than you could count. I produced something tangible and valuable, and I was paid well for doing it. Now I wear a white collar and take care of our employees by running one of the best safety programs in the industry. I make sure each and every one of my people are taken care of very well. And several former union guys have said we do better than the union did.

So now maybe you can make some assumptions that are a bit closer to the truth.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You are really a sad case. Oh, and if someone starts taking pics of your kids or grandkids when they are at their bus stop, is that ok with you?

I want someone to be able to run a business, within the bounds of the law, without having to worry about some vigilante thugs destroying their work or threatening their families. I want the laws to apply to BOTH sides. If there is a huge difference in pay, that will end up working itself out as the quality workers won't be there or won't stay there. But since you have no information on what was being paid to either the union workers or the non-union workers, you are speculating (at best).

Perhaps you lack the basic intellect to grasp the meaning of the word "Freedom". So far you have tried to tell me what I think it means. You have been grossly inaccurate. May I suggest you try reading a bit about it?

Yeah, usually, when I hear a Wingnut talking about "Freedom", I watch my back and my wallet.

Frankly, I don't care if the company was paying or not. There was a picket line, People crossed it. End of fucking discussion as far as i'm concerned. YOU DO NOT CROSS A PICKET LINE.

 

[Toro]

Union thugs shouldn't be exempt from laws to which everyone else is subject.

Hopefully, the union thugs jobs will be outsourced.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

You are really a sad case. Oh, and if someone starts taking pics of your kids or grandkids when they are at their bus stop, is that ok with you?

I want someone to be able to run a business, within the bounds of the law, without having to worry about some vigilante thugs destroying their work or threatening their families. I want the laws to apply to BOTH sides. If there is a huge difference in pay, that will end up working itself out as the quality workers won't be there or won't stay there. But since you have no information on what was being paid to either the union workers or the non-union workers, you are speculating (at best).

Perhaps you lack the basic intellect to grasp the meaning of the word "Freedom". So far you have tried to tell me what I think it means. You have been grossly inaccurate. May I suggest you try reading a bit about it?

Yeah, usually, when I hear a Wingnut talking about "Freedom", I watch my back and my wallet.

Frankly, I don't care if the company was paying or not. There was a picket line, People crossed it. End of fucking discussion as far as i'm concerned. YOU DO NOT CROSS A PICKET LINE.

I don't blindly follow any group. If there was a legitimate reason for the picket, I would not cross. But as often as not, the entire reason for a picket line is that they have non-union people working there, or that the workers voted not to have a union. In that case, I have no problem crossing that picket line.

Since you apparently think everyone who disagrees with you is a "Wingnut" I can see why you are so paranoid. But your myopic litle view of the world is ridiculous. You have tried over and over to paint me as a "Wingnut". And based on what?? That I think laws should apply to everyone equally??

 

[JoeB131]

Union thugs shouldn't be exempt from laws to which everyone else is subject.

Hopefully, the union thugs jobs will be outsourced.

Yeah, then we can vote for socialism that much faster.

Frankly, I don't want to pay a 95% tax rate to take care of everyone. Not sure why you do.

 

[JoeB131]

[]

I don't blindly follow any group. If there was a legitimate reason for the picket, I would not cross. But as often as not, the entire reason for a picket line is that they have non-union people working there, or that the workers voted not to have a union. In that case, I have no problem crossing that picket line.

Since you apparently think everyone who disagrees with you is a "Wingnut" I can see why you are so paranoid. But your myopic litle view of the world is ridiculous. You have tried over and over to paint me as a "Wingnut". And based on what?? That I think laws should apply to everyone equally??

That you have a real hostility towards working folks.

And somehow, I doubt youa re rich.

 

[WinterBorn]

[]

I don't blindly follow any group. If there was a legitimate reason for the picket, I would not cross. But as often as not, the entire reason for a picket line is that they have non-union people working there, or that the workers voted not to have a union. In that case, I have no problem crossing that picket line.

Since you apparently think everyone who disagrees with you is a "Wingnut" I can see why you are so paranoid. But your myopic litle view of the world is ridiculous. You have tried over and over to paint me as a "Wingnut". And based on what?? That I think laws should apply to everyone equally??

That you have a real hostility towards working folks.

And somehow, I doubt youa re rich.

Yeah, just keep making shit up as you go along.

I am very much pro-worker. It is my job to take care of our employees.

But if the picket line is not about anything other than whether or not there are union employees, I will cross that waste of time in a heartbeat. I have done it before, and nothing was done. I guess those union thugs prefer to threaten women and burn church meeting houses.

And no, I am not rich. I am comfortable. I have a nice house in a suburb of Atlanta. I have put 3 kids through college. I have a decent retirement account. And I enjoy my vacations and my weekends. I have good medical and dental coverage. And I have never been in a union in my life. Funny how I managed all those good things without a union, isn't it?

Here is the secret to it. I work hard and I work smart. If I see that where I am working is not a good fit for me, I find one that is a better fit. My employer gets quality work from me, and I get everything we agreed I would get.

 

[Spiderman]

Union thugs shouldn't be exempt from laws to which everyone else is subject.

Hopefully, the union thugs jobs will be outsourced.

Yeah, then we can vote for socialism that much faster.

Frankly, I don't want to pay a 95% tax rate to take care of everyone. Not sure why you do.

You don't want to you just want other people to.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Yeah, just keep making shit up as you go along.

I am very much pro-worker. It is my job to take care of our employees.

But if the picket line is not about anything other than whether or not there are union employees, I will cross that waste of time in a heartbeat. I have done it before, and nothing was done. I guess those union thugs prefer to threaten women and burn church meeting houses.

And no, I am not rich. I am comfortable. I have a nice house in a suburb of Atlanta. I have put 3 kids through college. I have a decent retirement account. And I enjoy my vacations and my weekends. I have good medical and dental coverage. And I have never been in a union in my life. Funny how I managed all those good things without a union, isn't it?

Here is the secret to it. I work hard and I work smart. If I see that where I am working is not a good fit for me, I find one that is a better fit. My employer gets quality work from me, and I get everything we agreed I would get.

OH, you're from the south?

SO you're technically retarded then?

That explains everything.

 

[JoeB131]

Union thugs shouldn't be exempt from laws to which everyone else is subject.

Hopefully, the union thugs jobs will be outsourced.

Yeah, then we can vote for socialism that much faster.

Frankly, I don't want to pay a 95% tax rate to take care of everyone. Not sure why you do.

You don't want to you just want other people to.

No, actually, I really don't.

I think what we did during Ike, where the Idle RIch paid a high rate, but the rich who were doing something constructive paid a decent rate, worked just fine, really.

Use to be, you Tards used to make claims about Laffer Curves and Supply side and other horseshit that giving tax breaks to the rich was good for the economy.

NOw you just think they deserve it.

 

[Spiderman]

Yeah, then we can vote for socialism that much faster.

Frankly, I don't want to pay a 95% tax rate to take care of everyone. Not sure why you do.

You don't want to you just want other people to.

No, actually, I really don't.

I think what we did during Ike, where the Idle RIch paid a high rate, but the rich who were doing something constructive paid a decent rate, worked just fine, really.

Use to be, you Tards used to make claims about Laffer Curves and Supply side and other horseshit that giving tax breaks to the rich was good for the economy.

NOw you just think they deserve it.

I never mentioned any of those things.

IMO it's better to let everyone keep as much of their own money as possible because that's good for the economy.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

Yeah, just keep making shit up as you go along.

I am very much pro-worker. It is my job to take care of our employees.

But if the picket line is not about anything other than whether or not there are union employees, I will cross that waste of time in a heartbeat. I have done it before, and nothing was done. I guess those union thugs prefer to threaten women and burn church meeting houses.

And no, I am not rich. I am comfortable. I have a nice house in a suburb of Atlanta. I have put 3 kids through college. I have a decent retirement account. And I enjoy my vacations and my weekends. I have good medical and dental coverage. And I have never been in a union in my life. Funny how I managed all those good things without a union, isn't it?

Here is the secret to it. I work hard and I work smart. If I see that where I am working is not a good fit for me, I find one that is a better fit. My employer gets quality work from me, and I get everything we agreed I would get.

OH, you're from the south?

SO you're technically retarded then?

That explains everything.

Considering I have run rings around you in this debate, I wouldn't be too quick to call anyone retarded.

But if you would like to match intellects I would be happy to continue to make you look foolish. Is insult and nonsense all you have to offer?

 

[MikeK]

[

You really are an idiot. But let's go with what you say. Let's pretend that there is a consumer demand for this new widget.

Now, how does that demand create jobs??? Do the workers just decide to show up and hope that there are materials, a building, plans, insurance, and all the other things?? How does the demand create jobs???

Oh yeah, some person starts a business!! But I guess only poor people start businesses??

No, Poor people do the actual work.

Rich people take the credit.

Rich people put their money up and risk it in the hopes of profits. Workers get paid for their work. Owners only get paid if there is a profit.

Your knowledge of business is minimal.

And your exercise of logical reasoning is either minimal or deliberately cunning.

Profit-sharing does not necessarily refer to equal shares but rather to shares which are proportional to overall profits, including downturns, and proportional to individual levels of contribution to productivity, i.e., a janitor would not be paid the same as a design engineer, etc. The value of the risk involved in starting a business is and should be considered in determining an employers' share of profits. But having taken that risk does neither discount nor diminish the value and importance of the workers without whose efforts there would be no profits.

The primarily positive aspect of profit-sharing is motivation. An employee whose wages depend on the quality of output is motivated to perform at peak efficiency. The concept of sharing extends beyond profits and into every aspect of productivity. No supervision is needed.

 

[MikeK]

Even the AFL-CIO leadership agrees that the exemption is a bad idea.

"Even the AFL-CIO has raised only a tepid defense. At a hearing in Harrisburg last August, Frank Snyder, the labor organization's secretary-treasurer, told members of the House Judiciary Committee that he worried the exemption could shield employers who harassed union employees.

"I myself have been stalked, harassed, experienced property damage . . .. and my hotel room broken into on different occasions," Snyder said Wednesday. "Both parties should be held to the same standard.""

Did Mr. Snyder offer conclusive proof of these allegations? Was any union member arrested and/or positively identified as having done those things?

If not, what you've said here is irrelevant.

 

[MikeK]

Rich people put their money up and risk it in the hopes of profits. Workers get paid for their work. Owners only get paid if there is a profit.

Your knowledge of business is minimal.

The poor Rich folks, so misunderstood.

Seriously, fuck them.

So if a business fails, do you as a line worker take on the debt?? Are you willing to take the debt and the hard hit to your credit rating, not to mention the creditors coming after your assets, if a business fails?

If I choose to accept a job on the basis of profit-sharing, the answer is yes.

But these aspects of profit-sharing must be clearly explained in advance of a prospective employee entering into contract. And it must be noted that every job-seeker is not necessarily willing to accept a profit-sharing arrangement. Many want an ordinary hourly wage job.

 

[WinterBorn]

Even the AFL-CIO leadership agrees that the exemption is a bad idea.

"Even the AFL-CIO has raised only a tepid defense. At a hearing in Harrisburg last August, Frank Snyder, the labor organization's secretary-treasurer, told members of the House Judiciary Committee that he worried the exemption could shield employers who harassed union employees.

"I myself have been stalked, harassed, experienced property damage . . .. and my hotel room broken into on different occasions," Snyder said Wednesday. "Both parties should be held to the same standard.""

Did Mr. Snyder offer conclusive proof of these allegations? Was any union member arrested and/or positively identified as having done those things?

If not, what you've said here is irrelevant.

Mr. Snyder is the secretary treasurer or the AFL-CIO. He agrees that the law should apply to everyone equally.

Do you disagree?